RSS
Home
The Shroud of Turin: looking beyond tabloid sensationalism
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Scarcely a year goes by that we don’t see a news item or documentary about some new facts/speculation regarding the good old Shroud of Turin. I refer to it that way because, from a news media perspective, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. In this era of ever more sophisticated research tools, there’s always a new test to propose running on it. Better yet, there seems no shortage of contradictory or ambiguous data to stoke the fires of both the faithful and the non-faithful who feel inclined to argue about it.
I claim no immunity from the compelling implications of the shroud. After all, whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or Other, you are unavoidably aware of Jesus and all the history and institutions connected to him. Other than some highly dubious fragments of the True Cross, we have no artifacts that are directly, verifiably traceable to him. Even if there were no image of a crucified figure on the Shroud of Turin, it would be a sensational, one-of-a-kind item if it could be verified as Jesus’ burial cloth. That it bears this image makes it potentially an item of tremendous historical and religious significance. I do believe, though, that a great many people have lost a balanced perspective on the significance of this object. I’m including certain members of both the pro- and anti-shroud groups in that statement.
Make no mistake – there are researchers who feel that the legitimacy of the shroud has been solidly debunked, that it has been demonstrated to be a forgery created centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus. At the same time, there are believers who feel just as strongly that it has been demonstrated to be of first century origin. Many of this group also believe that it was in fact the burial cloth worn by Jesus, and that the markings on it are of supernatural origin. They are unmoved by claims to the contrary and regard such claims as the result of either flawed or biased research.
I want to make it clear that I am not here to list the details of any of these arguments or to solicit commentary on them. Those details are readily available from a variety of sources if one is truly interested. I am also not here to argue for the truth of a particular viewpoint in that argument. But I do think there are some important facts that are normally kept on the periphery of the discussion or omitted altogether. I would speculate that they are usually glossed over because they have the effect of toning down the arguments and the rhetoric – and what fun is that? The old news slogan, “If it bleeds, it leads,” seems oddly appropriate here.
Basically, I have bad news for the hard-core vocal fringe groups on both sides of the argument. For those who believe (or hope) that debunking the shroud might strike a blow for rationality or a blow against organized religion, I would say that their hopes are misplaced. It would have no such effect. For those who regard this as a powerful, tangible sign of a miracle right before our eyes, one whose validation would be a powerful argument for the divinity of Jesus, I must report that they too are destined for disappointment. To extremists on both sides, I would say this: there’s less here than meets the eye.
Here's why: With regard to the Catholic Church, while it has approved the image of the shroud for use on devotional materials, it has never taken a pro/con position on the legitimacy of the object itself. Pope John Paul II had this to say about it: “Since we’re not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can’t pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud.”
In other words, belief in the shroud’s legitimacy is not an article of formal doctrine. It seems to me that any intelligent person of faith would have to agree that if someone has based their faith in Jesus on the presumed legitimacy of the shroud, then there is something profoundly flawed about their understanding of their faith. If the shroud were somehow finally, unequivocally debunked for all to see and agree upon, it would not represent any sort of fundamental commentary on the legitimacy of Christian faith.
So do I think we should all leave the shroud alone? Let it repose quietly in Turin and stop poking at it? Not at all. It is a fascinating piece of history. Like any historical relic, it is intertwined with myriad other threads of religion, politics, technology, and who know what else. The more we learn about it and its origins, the more we learn about numerous other related topics that help us to understand how we got to where we are today.
The other question some might ask of me at this point is: Which side am I on – the religious or the anti-religious? Easy answer – neither. And besides, those are hardly the only two sides in this equation. One must distinguish between the anti-religious and the non-religious for starters. I’m on the side of pursuing the unknown and correcting misconceptions and deceptions when they are identified. I would add that anyone who lives in the hope that science might conclusively prove the existence of a miracle has a poor understanding of scientific methodology.
I may not be religious, but I think I picked up some pretty good ideas here and there in the course of my parochial school years. Here’s one: The truth shall set you free. This is not only a religious maxim; it is a scientific one as well. In closing, I would make this biblical reference with regard to those who generate more heat than light in the shroud discussion: The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as it was in Sampson’s time.
Related Articles:
Comments
